The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
David Bier on "What Biden Has Gotten Right on Immigration Policy"
There is much to criticize in Biden's record on immigration issues. But the administration has also made some major improvements.

There is much to criticize in the Biden Administration's record on immigration policy, and I myself have sometimes been among the critics, most notably on the administration's extension of cruel Title 42 "public health" expulsions of migrants, and other harmful pandemic-era migration restrictions. But it is also important to recognize that Biden has made major improvements in immigration policy, and has even - belatedly - begun to wind down some of the awful policies he himself previously perpetuated. At the very least, claims that Biden has mostly just perpetuated Trump's ultra-restrictionist policies are utterly unjustified.
Cato Institute immigration policy expert David Bier - himself often a critic of the administration - has a helpful summary of their achievements in this field. The list is long and difficult to summarize. I urge anyone interested in these issues to read (oar least skim!) the whole thing.
However, it's worth emphasizing that Biden has now - however belatedly - terminated almost of all of Trump's major restrictionist innovations, including his anti-Muslim travel bans, restrictions on work visas, the massive Title 42 expulsions (now scheduled to end on Dec. 21, though litigation might yet prevent that), and much else. And, in his establishment of private refugee sponsorship programs that make it possible to admit migrants far faster and cheaper than in the moribund traditional refugee system, he has gone beyond merely repudiating Trump. These innovations, most notably the Uniting for Ukraine program, not only improve on Trump's policies, but also on those of prior administrations.
As Bier notes, there are still many flaws in Biden's immigration policies. Moreover, most of his beneficial initiatives have the shortcoming that they largely depend on unilateral executive action. As such, they could potentially be easily reversed by a future president, or even by Biden himself, should he find it politically advantageous to do so.
Furthermore, the Administration's successes on immigration policy should not blind libertarians - or anyone - to its shortcomings on other issues. Ironically, the same president who (rightly) denounced Trump's abuse of emergency powers to try to build his border wall, is using similar high-handed tactics to facilitate student loan debt cancellation.
Nonetheless, Biden does deserve considerable credit for the many improvements he has made on immigration policy. Reducing immigration restrictions is one of the great issues of our time. Barriers to migration are among the most severe restrictions on liberty imposed by Western democracies (including that of current US citizens), and inflict massive harm on both would-be immigrants (many of whom are forcibly condemned to lifelong and poverty and oppression merely because they were born in the wrong place or to the wrong parents) and natives, alike.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
More comedy from Somin and Company.
1) This is not about illegal immigration, but about immigration generally. I hear you shouldn't conflate the two.
2) Even if you're against immigration, if you care about the area at all, you should check out the Cato link.
It is people like you who "conflate" illegal aliens, refugees and legal immigrants to confuse the issue.
Here's a novel idea: How about a policy that comports with and enforces existing law?
How do the changes discussed not comport with existing law?
How can you be enforcing existing law while having a policy of not deporting illegal immigrants who you do catch?
Because this post is about legal immigration.
Not really. The big one is Title 42, which was applied to many people illegally crossing the border.
That's asylum, not illegal immigration.
Once again, scratch someone unhappy about illegal immigration and they turn out to be against immigration generally.
"That’s asylum, not illegal immigration."
LOL! Claiming asylum you're not entitled to is something illegal immigrants are coached to do if they're caught.
There are multiple reasons to doubt that anybody not a Mexican, showing up at our Southern border, actually has a valid asylum claim in the US. They apply in spades to Russians, who typically had to pass through multiple free countries to get here.
Ilya, of course, will always say he's talking about legal immigrants, because he denies the US is constitutionally permitted to have immigration laws. "Illegal immigrants" aren't a thing capable of being discussed, from his perspective.
No, actually, claiming asylum and being denied because you're not eligible is NOT illegal immigration.
There are multiple reasons to doubt that anybody not a Mexican, showing up at our Southern border, actually has a valid asylum claim in the US.
No, this is your hostility to the current eligibility criteria.
Ilya, of course, will always say he’s talking about legal immigrants
Border security and enforcement regarding visa overstays is about illegal immigration. EVERYTHING ELSE is immigration policy.
No, but illegally immigrating and claiming asylum when you're caught absolutely is. And that's the source of most asylum claims on our Southern border.
For that matter, just as overstaying a visa is illegal immigration even if you came by the visa legitimately, making a fraudulent asylum claim to get entry into the country with the intent of finding some way to stay when it's denied is equally illegal immigration.
Most asylum claims on the US border with Mexico are nothing but a tactic to illegitimately delay deportation, almost all are invalid.
Because, again, first nation of refuge: Unless you're a Mexican, seeking asylum at our border with Mexico is almost always unjustified.
"illegally immigrating and claiming asylum" is something you've made up. Asylum requirements and illegal entry are an awkward pair.
Making claims that are denied is not fraud. It's more of your telepathic bad faith.
Jesus Christ, you make stuff up about asylum so damn much! Do you have any sources other than your own ass?
I forget: are you basing this on your expertise as an immigration lawyer, or your experience as an immigration judge?
I'm basing it on the majority of applications being denied.
Though this may be relevant, too.
Silly me, I would think a Muslim ban would ban Muslims.
Instead, a Muslim ban just bans all religions from certain countries with known ineffective documentation procedures for travelers.
Muslims from other countries, with acceptable procedures, are still allowed.
Whodathunkit?
Trump called it a Muslim ban. He had to revise it twice to make it not as blatantly anti-Muslim as it started. And the Supreme Court somehow examined it as targeting Muslims.
Weird anyone would think it was a Muslim ban!
And the combined population of those countries accounts for less than 10% of the world's Muslims. A very curious characterization, perfesser.
So you argue that any ban that doesn't target all Muslims can't be a Muslim ban.
Many, including Trump, would disagree with you.
It didn't target Muslims AT ALL, as implemented. It targeted countries that didn't meaningfully assist in vetting immigrants. These countries tended to be Islamic countries, yes, but the correlation wasn't all that profound, and the restriction applied without regard to the religion of the person applying for entry.
You need to be willing to admit when somebody has given up on some proposed policy, and gone on to do something different. Maybe more people would change their policies, if doing so ever got them any credit...
“At the very least, claims that Biden has mostly just perpetuated Trump’s ultra-restrictionist policies are utterly unjustified.”
In the context of the normal range of immigration restrictions you’ve seen in the US, and other democracies, Trump’s immigration policies were middle of the road. Your having extreme open borders views doesn’t make widely popular policies “ultra-restrictionist”.
Try for some perspective here. In the context of American politics, you’re the extremist, not Trump. Doesn't mean you're wrong, doesn't mean he's right. But, you are not a centrist. Try to show some awareness of that!
In the context of the normal range of immigration restrictions you’ve seen in the US, and other democracies, Trump’s immigration policies were middle of the road.
You may think that, but you would be wrong. Beyond is anti-immigration (not just illegal immigration) rhetoric, his refugee policies amounted to a near complete halt to processing. That's pretty extreme!
STEM immigration is part of my portfolio at work, and UCIS under him was all over the map, closing visa processing utterly and then opening it back up a month later, now with a worse backlog. Unnecessary and cruel.
You know what would be "ultra-restrictionist"? Stopping legal immigration almost entirely, as was done from the 1920's to the 1960's. Bringing back Operation Wetback, and devoting real resources to hunting down all illegal immigrants and deporting them.
All Trump was doing was cracking down on ILLEGAL immigration, and he was even open to continuing DACA if Congress were willing to give it some statutory basis. And restricting immigration somewhat from a handful of countries that didn't meaningfully help with vetting immigrants.
You shouldn't call people "ultra" this or that when they're actually far from representing any extreme of policy.
Again, Somin's view are much more radical in the American context than Trump's. He really needs to have enough objectivity to admit that. It's not remotely the same thing as admitting he's wrong. But people with outlier views, just as a matter of intellectual honesty, need to be willing to accept that they're outliers.
Your previous comparison was to other democracies. Now you're moved to some of the more...racially problematic parts of America's history.
Your new goalposts are awful!
All Trump was doing was cracking down on ILLEGAL immigration
And asylum. And visas. You have no idea what you're talking about.
This isn't about Prof. Somin's views, it's about you making up a reality you'd prefer to what the Trump Admin actually did.
"Now you’re moved to some of the more…racially problematic parts of America’s history."
Yeah, I'm pointing out what actual "ultra-restrictionist" policies look like. Somin, being a radical open borders advocate, can't see any difference between shutting our borders entirely to all immigration, (Which actually would be 'ultra-restrictionist'.) and simply enforcing laws against illegal immigration.
As a fanatic, he's blind to such distinctions, he views ALL limits on people crossing borders as categorically illegitimate. He doesn't even admit such laws can be constitutional!
I think it's pathetic the way he can't just come out and admit to being an extremist on the topic, when he's adopted views that are so radically contrary to anything that could ever be democratically adopted.
You're making a comparative claim in an attempt to disprove a normative one. That isn't going to get you where you want to go.
As a fanatic, he’s blind to such distinctions,
Between your ad hominem and moving goalposts, you're no better.
Sure, I'm better: I'm aware that I'm an extremist.
Somin is no less an extremist, but lacks that self-awareness.
"STEM immigration is part of my portfolio at work"
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
What is it I'm paid not to understand?
Immigration
No, I'm actually paid to *understand* that.
Almost everything.
"Almost everything."
Unfair, he is only paid to not understand some things. The rest he volunteers not to understand.
If you don't know how should anyone else?
I see Professor Somin has branched out to comedy = Biden does deserve considerable credit for the many improvements he has made on immigration policy.
I see so much of this on Prof. Somin posts - empty oppositionalism without actual engagement.
I know you're capable of being better than a knee-jerk ideologue. Read the policy changes in the Cato link, and then say which ones you think go in the wrong direction. Then we can have an actual discussion!
"which ones you think go in the wrong direction"
Its Cato, so all of them, duh.
You're really boring these days.
Maybe if Somin engaged, himself, it would help?
The "Anti-Moose-lum Travel Ban" that didn't apply to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Quatar, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pock-i-Stan, and did apply to North Korea and Venezuela??? Only problem I had with it was it didn't go far enough, given that it wouldn't have banned any of the 9-11 terrorists.
There's at least one immigrant Mr. Nancy Pelosi probably wishes had been "Banned"
That should be illegal alien visa overstayer.
Anyone know what the deal is with 502 and 504 error codes?
10 Millon Palestinians trapped. Time to offer them ALL asylum to the US. Who could be against that? Esp since we provide Israel with many of the weapons, they use to kill Palestinians living in occupied terror ties. Love is Love, no one is illegal, hate is not spoken here. Welcome our brothers from Palestine.
Martha's Vineyard has vacancies.
Are you claiming that there is a Biden policy in effect to not enforce tax laws (Hunter Biden excluded)?
I'll start getting concerned with people evading taxes they are legally supposed to be paying when the bottom 47% (mostly blacks, mestizos, and single women) stops voting themselves free stuff.
But they weren't all of the Muslim countries
Like the Islamic Republic of North Korea??? Are you really Hershell Walker??
"They were *all* Muslim countries, right?"
Nope. Of the original 7, only five were.
Ah C'mon (Man!) Hunter died in Afghanistan fighting the Columbians!
Are you claiming that there is a Biden policy in effect to not enforce tax laws (Hunter Biden excluded)?
This has *nothing* to do with the OP. You shot your mouth off, yet again, and are now trying to throw partisan chaff in the air to cover how you, once again, have nothing.
Based on what? Are you counting Al Sharpton, Hunter and Joe Biden, IRS employees and illegal aliens?
No, I think he's basing it on people not paying state sales tax on bags of Taquis they pick up on road trips and bring home. As they theoretically are legally required to.
It bore repeating. 🙂
Ah, the race card.
Obfuscate and dissemble away.
The Queen seems a bit testy.
Did you forget, Brett? We discussed it quite a bit - you seemed very in favor! I seem to recall something about what happens when Muslims in a country reach critical mass...
Yeah, we did discuss it, didn't we? How Obama had compiled that initial list.
It was an example. One I guess you can't respond to, because you retreated to being offended.
Once again, Brett, that was after it was revised.
Let me refresh your memory.
Rudy Giuliani said on Fox News that President Trump came to him for guidance over the order. He said that Trump called him about a "Muslim ban" and asked him to form a committee to show him "the right way to do it legally". The committee, which included former U.S. attorney general and chief judge of the Southern District of New York Michael Mukasey and representatives Mike McCaul and Peter T. King, decided to drop the religious basis and instead focus on regions where, as Giuliani put it, there is "substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists" to the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Development
I don't think you're lying, I just think you have a remarkably selective memory.
Yes, as Sarc notes, Brett often demonstrates this type of selective memory. There seems to be something in his background or personality that triggers a particularly strong confirmation bias engine—the human brain’s tendency (that we all have) to far more easily recognize, store, and recall information reinforcing a preexisting bias, than information contradicting such a bias.
Confirmation bias often ends with someone who never learns the best arguments of his opponents, and thus is unable to rationally counter them. Some people recognize that tendency when it happens and purposefully try to avoid it. Some people don’t.
It is hard to be civil when you are such a willful asshple.
My question was in direct response to a claim made by the Queen.
Fair enough, and withdrawn. Though you're one to talk about tone after the bile you posted on Thanksgiving.
It does look like you just disengaged when I asked what your particular issue was. Still a poor showing.
What are you talking about, Brett? Which retail stores do you think are not charging sales tax when they sell products to people?
Are you a bit unclear about the topic?
It varies from state to state, but many states have laws requiring you to pay state sales taxes on things you bought in other states, while you were in those other states, and brought back. Often with an offset for any local sales taxes you'd paid. This tax is usually self-reported on your state tax return, and practically nobody pays it.
Literally, buy a bag of chips on a road trip, if you don't consume it before you come home, you may owe state taxes on it, and be a tax cheat if you don't pay them. Technically.
They generally only get testy about it if it's something really expensive, like a car.